Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/27/2003 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 117-ELIMINATING LONGEVITY BONUS PROGRAM
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked the department representatives to come
forward.
RAY MATIASHOWSKI, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of
Administration, read the following into the record:
The original intent of the Alaska Longevity Bonus
program was to provide incentive for older Alaskans to
continue uninterrupted residency in Alaska,
acknowledge the economic hardships of living out
retirement years in the state, and to recognize the
contributions these pioneers made while Alaska was a
territory.
The actual program began in 1973 with $100 checks
being mailed to approximately 4700 recipients with a
total cost to the State of about two and a half
million dollars. Over the subsequent years the number
of recipients grew, as did the size of the checks, up
to $250 in 1982. In 1982 there were just over 9,000
Alaskans receiving a longevity bonus check at a total
cost of $26,000,000.
The original eligibility requirements to get a check
were that an individual had to be 65 years old, have
lived in the territory on or before January 3, 1959,
and maintained a domicile in the state for 25 years.
All three of these criteria had to be met in order to
become eligible to receive a check from the State.
In 1984 through the results of a legal challenge,
these requirements were eliminated and a 1-year
residency requirement was implemented. The cost of
the longevity bonus program was $29,000,000 in 1984
and swelled to $43,000,000 in 1985.
Over the following years the program continued to
grow, reaching its peak in 1996 with a total general
fund outlay of $73,270,100.
A phase-out program was implemented in 1994 reducing
the monthly checks to new recipients by $50 per year
for the next three years, and no recipients were added
to the program after December 31, 1996. All people on
the program prior to 1997 continue to receive their
checks as long as they maintain eligibility
requirements.
Because of this phase out, the program is gradually
shrinking over time with projections of approximately
$29,000,000 being paid out in 2009 and the last
seniors receiving checks in about 2030. Additionally
because of the phase out, of the 38,000 seniors
currently in Alaska, about 18,000 are receiving a
longevity bonus check leaving 20,000 seniors
completely uncovered by this program.
Because of the unequal treatment the program offers
seniors and because it no longer reflects it's
original intent, the administration is seeking the
elimination of the longevity bonus program.
JOEL GILBERTSON, Commissioner of the Department of Health and
Social Services added:
I come before the committee today as a fellow
department to discuss the continued safety net
programs that will be fully funded under the Murkowski
2004 budget request and other programs that are being
administered through the state on behalf of the
federal government. Continuing under Governor
Murkowski's budget for 2004 will be full funding of
Adult Public Assistance, which continues to provide
cash assistance to over 4,800 senior citizens in this
state. That is at a cost of over $20 million in
general fund dollars for old age assistance program.
In addition, fully funded will be assisted living
general relief, which provides services to over 263
seniors at a cost to the state of $2.4 million
annually. We will continue our food stamp program,
which serves approximately 1,092 seniors who reside in
households and that distribution is $2.8 million
annually. We are continuing our home and community
based programs grants at a cost of $1.5 million, our
Medicaid home and community based waiver services,
which provide over 1,250 seniors who are eligible for
nursing home care and they voted to remain in their
own communities and in their homes at a cost of $19.7
million annually to the state. Additionally, we are
fully funding the 602 beds that are currently being
used in the Alaska Pioneer Homes at a cost of $34
million. We are continuing nursing home coverage, long
term care coverage under Medicaid for seniors, which
allows between 850 and 900 seniors to live in nursing
homes at a cost of $58 million to the state in FY02,
the last year we have of completed Medicaid numbers.
Additionally, we continue the guardianship and
conservator programs, which serve 850 adults at $1.4
million. We continue our personal care attendant
program, which provides assistance to seniors with
functional impairments at a cost of $13.7 million and
serves over 1,800 Alaskans. We are continuing Medicaid
coverage to assist seniors who are receiving Medicaid
but don't have the means to make premium payments or
co-payments. We pay the premiums, the co-payments and
the deductible coverage for individuals at 100 percent
of poverty. And we pay premiums for individuals at 130
percent of poverty. Our total Medicaid program
assistance for seniors, including prescription drugs
and medical care and hospitalization to over 6,300
elderly Alaskans is at a cost of $95 million annually.
In addition we will be working with Washington to
pursue a prescription drug benefit through the
Medicare Program where it belongs. This Administration
remains committed to having a safety net program for
seniors. Safety net programs that provide prescription
drug coverage and access to long term care and
assisted living personal care attendants. Food
assistance and cash assistance payments will be fully
funded under the Governor's budget. As the Deputy
Commissioner stated, 20,000 seniors currently do not
receive the Alaska Longevity Bonus; an amount of
seniors that is higher than the number that do receive
the program and the intent of the program has changed.
The intent of the program has not changed, but the
actual reality of the operation of the program is
different from its original intent when it was
created.
I'm here to let you know that the Administration is
committed to fully funding safety net programs. Safety
net programs are funded in the FY04 budget. These
programs will continue. They provide the safety net to
seniors and the Administration supports the bill
obviously - SB 117 - and both Ray Matiashowski and
myself are here to answer any questions or yield to
what I expect to be a full session of testimony from
the public.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if members had any questions.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY said he would like a list of the recipients
of the bonus sorted by district.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MATIASHOWSKI advised the department had that
information sorted by zip code and he would check to find out
whether it could be sorted by legislative district.
SENATOR COWDERY replied that would be helpful. He reported both
he and his wife are recipients. He heard about the possibility
of a needs based program and would be interested in hearing
more. Although an individual might not need the bonus today that
is no guarantee it wouldn't be needed in the future.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS pointed out the information was available on
page two in the committee packets.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked for an explanation for eliminating
the program. She understood the Commissioner's perspective that
there are other programs, but she was unclear why the
Administration was looking at eliminating the program.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MATIASHOWSKI stated the main reason is the
program does not meet the original intent. The Legislature
implemented it to provide incentive to people who lived in the
state during territorial days to remain in the state in
retirement. With the elimination of the residency requirement,
it became a different program and the true dollar cost to the
state is too high to sustain.
COMMISSIONER GILBERTSON added it is fair to say the program is
different than when it was created. As a result of litigation
regarding length of residency, it is a different program. There
are now more seniors who do not receive the bonus than seniors
who do receive the bonus. There are seniors on Adult Public
Assistance who aren't eligible for the bonus program and there
are seniors who are not on Adult Public Assistance who do
receive the bonus. The safety net programs will continue to
exist and the Administration believes the state's resources are
best put into those programs.
SENATOR GUESS asked if he was referring to the 1973 intent when
he says it isn't the original intent because it's obvious it has
been the intent of Legislatures and other governors to have this
program.
COMMISSIONER GILBERTSON agreed he was referring to the program
as originally created.
SENATOR GUESS asked if there were still people that fit the
original criteria that would be taken off the program if it were
eliminated. She observed you couldn't get to the original intent
the way the program is currently structured.
COMMISSIONER GILBERTSON acknowledged he understood what she was
saying, but according to his definition the current program is
beyond the original intent in terms of expenditure and scope.
SENATOR GUESS questioned, "There are still people that fit in
that original intent that would be removed from this program?"
COMMISSIONER GILBERTSON agreed and repeated there are safety net
programs within state government that are fully funded in the
'04 budget. Those programs accomplish the Administration's goal,
which is to ensure that needed services are available to
seniors. At a time when resources must be allocated to maintain
core state functions and a safety net for all seniors, the
Administration sees this as the best way to accomplish that
goal.
SENATOR GUESS remarked the original intent had nothing to do
with having a safety net. The safety net issues are clear, but
it's a different issue.
She asked whether the Administration believes that the 1994
Legislature made a commitment when it decided to phase out the
program.
COMMISSIONER GILBERTSON replied he isn't presumptuous enough to
state the commitment made by the Legislature at that time.
However, the Administration's position is that under the current
budget situation facing the state, and the current need to fund
core services and safety net programs, resources need to target
the safety net programs.
SENATOR GUESS asked if that means that the $47 million from the
bonus program would increase the current funding to those safety
net programs by $47 million.
COMMISSIONER GILBERTSON responded his department saw over $80
million in general fund revenues going from 2003 to 2004 and
another $60 million in general fund revenue associated with the
Medicaid program.
SENATOR GUESS repeated she was asking whether the bonus money
would be added to the safety net programs, she wasn't talking
about additional growth monies.
COMMISSIONER GILBERTSON replied the department would be spending
more in their Medicaid program in 2004 than in 2003 and over
half the costs would be associated with care provided to seniors
and individuals with disabilities. There is more money being
invested in the Medicaid program and costs are increasing
annually.
SENATOR GUESS said she and the Commissioner would meet later
because they had different definitions of what new money means.
SENATOR COWDERY asked anyone that was in the program at
inception to raise his or her hand.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER reported many people couldn't hear the
question.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS repeated the Senator's question and noted
eight hands were raised.
SENATOR HOFFMAN stated the problem is it isn't new money.
Programs are costing more, but the services provided are the
same. To say that the bonus checks should go toward increased
costs doesn't seem to make much sense. Even if all the bonus
program money were used, it wouldn't keep pace with the program
cost increases. He asked if the Commissioner was saying that is
possible.
COMMISSIONER GILBERTSON replied he wasn't saying that. He was
saying they have seen exponential growth in the number of
seniors being served. Between 2003 and 2004 they are projecting
an increase in the cost per individual and in the number of
individuals seeking service. The increased business for these
programs will take additional general fund dollars and to
strengthen the safety net, the Administration believes there is
a need to prioritize services and the budget. The Governor's
position is core services must be funded in the FY04 budget.
Difficult decisions were made and this is part of that decision
making process.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said many of the people he has discussed this
with say the bonus provides up to and in many cases, in excess
of 50 percent of their income. That purchasing power has
diminished over the life of the program and the actual
purchasing power of the $250 is nowhere near what it was in
1973. Many of the things these people use their dollars on are
not covered by the safety net and it's difficult for them to
find even part time work to supplement their income.
He asked whether the Administration had given any consideration
to a needs based program referred to by Senator Cowdery.
4:00 pm
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said to keep that question in mind for a
moment and reported Virginia Smiley, the Administrative Services
Manager with the Longevity Bonus Program, was available for just
a short time if there were any questions. None were forthcoming.
He restated Senator Hoffman's question regarding a needs-based
approach.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MATIASHOWSKI advised the Administration's
position is to support SB 117 and he was unaware of any
discussion of a needs-based program.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if the Governor would veto such a bill if
"it landed on his desk."
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MATIASHOWSKI answered he was certainly
unable to answer that question.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced he would take public testimony from
three people in Juneau then move to each of the LIO sites before
returning to Juneau.
SENATOR FRED DYSON suggested the Chair offer people with time or
physical limitations the opportunity to testify first.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS agreed that was a good point.
ROSALEE WALKER from Juneau submitted the following and read it
into the record:
I have been a resident of Juneau, Alaska for 37 years.
I come before you as a member of the Board of
Directors for the Older Persons Action Group (OPAG),
and as the president of the AARP Mount Juneau Chapter
#865. Both of these organizations oppose the
elimination of the Longevity Bonus Program.
It is well documented that for many years Alaskan
seniors have voluntarily worked with elected officials
at all levels of government to help to seek solutions
to a variety of problems. We are proud of the quality
and extent of our volunteer involvement. As Alaskans,
we do not restrict our activities to issues that are
related to seniors only, but we work cooperatively to
seek responsible, reasonable, and fair solutions that
will benefit our nation, our state, and our local
communities. We are, indeed, sensitive to the growing
concerns about Alaska's budget situation and we
participate with the decision makers during their
deliberations on budgetary matters.
When the Governor stated that he wanted to eliminate
budgetary waste as a part of his plan to address
Alaska's budget dilemma, we applauded this effort.
Needless to say, it came as a great shock to us to
find out that we had been targeted as budgetary waste
in the proposal to eliminate the Longevity Bonus
Program. The gross simplified justification that has
been offered by the Administration to eliminate the
Longevity Bonus Program is based upon an uniformed
decision. Ending this program in such a sudden and
deliberate manner will open a Pandora's box the
results of which cannot be imagined. Instead of
helping to solve our budget problems, the elimination
of the Longevity Bonus Program has the potential to
exacerbate Alaska's budgetary problems. Additionally,
the negative impacts that will be imposed upon some of
Alaska's most vulnerable citizens will be devastating.
There is nothing new about attempts to eliminate the
Longevity Bonus Program, and seniors have been zealous
in their efforts to maintain at least some portion of
its benefits. In a sincere effort to salvage the
program in 1993, the Legislature made a commitment to
continue the Longevity Bonus Program on a limited
basis and to allow the program to "sunset" itself as
the participants left the state or died. For many of
us who were involved at that time, the agreement that
was made was considered to be closure as far as this
particular issue was concerned. The Legislature made a
commitment in good faith and we seniors were satisfied
that this would be the end of the matter.
State policy decisions concerning the Longevity Bonus
Program should be viewed in the context of current
economic and social benefits to the recipients as well
as economic and social benefits to the state. Seeking
waste in government does not mean that it is necessary
to "rip and run" with any funds that may seem
available without serious examination of impacts upon
the recipients, agencies, families, and communities.
We all realize that the devil is in the details, but
the Administration has not taken the time to analyze
the Longevity Bonus Program to find out where the
devil may be hiding.
The proposal to eliminate the Longevity Bonus Program
has been presented to the Legislature in haste with no
concern about anything except the confiscation of
funds for the Administration's purposes. We seniors
feel that we were deliberately ignored during the
development of this proposal, and we feel a sense of
betrayal regarding the 1993 legislative commitment. We
respectfully ask that you vote against the
Administration's proposal to eliminate the Longevity
Bonus Program. If any of you have nagging and
persistent concerns, vote "NO" anyway. Give us at
least one year to have an opportunity to work with the
Legislature, the Administration, and the recipients to
seek a solution that is responsible, reasonable, and
fair. We are ready, willing and able to volunteer the
time and effort that will be necessary to reach that
goal.
Please do not accept the Administration's proposal to
eliminate the Longevity Bonus Program! Vote no!
SENATOR DYSON asked whether she would support a fair needs test
so wealthy individuals wouldn't receive the money.
MS. WALKER replied, "This is a bag of worms." She likened the
Administration's efforts to the analogy of cutting off the
bottom of the blanket and sewing it on the top to make the
blanket longer. The integrity of the blanket is destroyed and
it's shorter anyway because of the new seam. She urged
legislators to work with the recipients to determine why a means
test made them so unhappy.
BARBARA RICE from Juneau opposed SB 117. When she first came to
Alaska, people moved south when they retired for cheaper living.
One of the reasons for the bonus was to keep retirees and their
accumulated assets in Alaska to help the economy.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted Dorothy Hildre, Lila Dyer, James and
Marie Devon were present but did not want to testify.
MIKE RACE from Juneau opposed SB 117. His mother is a recipient
of the bonus and lives in one of the Pioneer Homes. He opined
both the longevity bonus program and the Pioneer Home system
should remain under the Department of Administration.
He suggested reducing each bonus check by ten percent.
Administrating a needs-based program would cost more than it
would be worth.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS restated his intention to rotate testimony
among the off net and LIO sites and to limit initial testimony
to three individuals per site.
CHARLES MICHON from Homer opposed SB 117. He and his wife make
about $1,100 in Social Security benefits and it doesn't go very
far. The bonus pays for medication and some insurance.
EDNA FISK from Homer opposed SB 117. The program is already
being phased out and the recipients are the ones who helped
build Alaska. She and her husband are still living in Alaska
thanks to the bonus.
TEPA ROGERS from Homer opposed SB 117. She said she was born in
1931 and receives the $100 bonus so anyone born after that year
is not eligible. The pool of recipients is dwindling rapidly and
it should be allowed to phase out naturally.
MICHAEL WILLIAMS from Beaver signed up to testify, but was
unavailable.
GARY LONGLEY Sr. from Nome opposed SB 117. He said he is 70
years old and is not eligible for the bonus so he has no axe to
grind regarding continuation of the program. However, his mother
and brother would be adversely affected if she were to lose the
bonus. They are able to afford to live in an Anchorage nursing
home because of Social Security, a disability payment and her
longevity bonus. If she were to lose the bonus, they might have
to find another place to live.
"It doesn't take a big brain to realize that closing out of the
longevity bonus program will be done shortly because these older
people are dying off. Attrition will automatically close out the
program. Please keep in mind all recipients are in their 70s,
80s, 90s, and even 100s. They are used to receiving the bonus
and it's too late for them to adjust to make an economic
change.... This program has not outlived its purpose; it will
have outlived its purpose when all the recipients have gone to
the Happy Hunting Grounds. Listen to Lyman Hoffman, he's right
on the money."
TONY KRIER from Nome opposed SB 117. He came to Alaska in 1943
and his longevity check pays for his utilities. He would like to
see the program continue.
NORMA NICLAS from Nome opposed SB 117. She is the director of
the senior center in Nome. About 95 percent of the Elders that
go to the center or are on home delivery take advantage of
public assistance because they don't have an economic choice.
They have lived a subsistence life style most of their lives and
to take the bonus away would be cruel and heartless. Most of the
senior safety net items aren't even available in Nome.
SIDE B
4:25 pm
JIM DUROS from Kodiak opposed SB 117. He said he is an ordinary
retired citizen who has spent 54 years in Alaska and hopes he
can spend his "remaining days in this beautiful state." He said,
"I will always be humbly grateful for those benefits provided to
me as a senior citizen and especially those longevity bonus
checks I receive that have made it possible for me and other
seniors to survive the ever increasing high cost of living in
Alaska.... Most of us who are aided by the longevity bonus will
not live much longer.... making the program extinct in a few
more years. In my opinion, our state will suffer an adverse
economy if and when the longevity program ends. If we elder
Alaskans are able to remain in Alaska, we will continue to give
back very much more than we receive and this is the reason the
original longevity bonus program was conceived."
PAT BRANSON executive director of the senior center in Kodiak
opposed SB 117. On Kodiak Island they serve about 1,004 people
who are over 60 half of which are minorities that live at the
poverty guideline. Another 35 percent live at just above the
poverty guideline, but cannot receive public assistance. They
can make $15,000 per year and not qualify for the safety nets
the Department of Health and Social Services mentioned.
She said, "I would challenge each of you to try and live on
$15,000 a year. Taking the longevity away from this category of
seniors would be most hurtful. Most seniors on our island live
only on Social Security and their longevity bonus and their
income is less than $20,000 a year. They pay for their
prescription drugs, rent, food with their longevity checks. They
have no private insurance coverage and Medicare does not pay for
prescription drugs. When Governor Murkowski speaks about other
safety nets that are available for seniors if the longevity is
eliminated, he is excluding assistance for seniors who are above
the minimum income criteria of $1,000 a month and those who do
not meet nursing home needs to qualify for the choice waiver
program. These are the people who volunteer to stay in our
community and contribute to the economy. The longevity bonus is
a safety net in keeping these seniors out of costly nursing
homes and for assisting them in living independently for as long
as possible and continuing to contribute to our state."
DR. BOB JOHNSON opposed SB 117 as a representative of the
Pioneers of Kodiak, Igloo 18. Initially this was to reward those
who had spent many years in Alaska. It is similar to a
retirement payment a corporation might give a long-term
employee. He opined the Legislature was delinquent not defending
this as a constitutional idea. The bonus was a promise or a
contract and it should be honored. Eliminating the program might
ultimately end up costing the state as much if not more than it
does now. The same applies to a means test. It's a fine idea but
it would be expensive to implement and would probably cost more
than it would save.
SELINA PETRUSKA testified on behalf of the elders in Beaver in
opposition to SB 117. Eliminating the bonus would be devastating
to the Elders.
CHARLES BROKER testified that the seniors in Tok are opposed to
SB 117. He asked what ideas Governor Murkowski has for seniors
because, "The $250 is a pretty hard thing to beat."
FREDDIE LOLLY from Tok opposed SB 117. She doesn't want to have
to collect food stamps and at her age she shouldn't be forced
into that position. She said, "I certainly hope you'll consider
leaving things alone because I don't think you can come up with
anything any better."
GLORIA STICKWAN from Glennallen testified on behalf of the
Tazlina Village Council. The Tazlina residents faxed a statement
to the Chair opposing SB 117. The cost of living in the Tazlina
area is very high. Monthly fuel bills are at least $500 and a
single bag of groceries costs about $100. Eliminating the bonus
will create hardship for these elders. Getting safety net
programs in place would probably cost more than the longevity
bonus plan does now.
JANE BROWN from Glennallen opposed SB 117. She is not a senior
citizen and none of her relatives qualify for the bonus, but she
believes the program was a promise to the senior population and
it shouldn't be broken by the state. She suggested, "Before you
ask seniors who live on a fixed income to tighten their belts,
you should first cut the state employees retirement COLA
benefits."
ED MARTIN SR. from Soldotna opposed SB 117. He said the program
is well needed by those least able to support themselves due to
age and ability to work and care for themselves. Other areas of
the state budget should be cut before the bonus program.
JAMES PRICE from Nikiski opposed SB 117. He said he is 44 years
old and he would rather pay income tax than see the bonus
program cut. It has helped make Alaska a better place for all
the residents. He said, "I'm surprised that the Legislature
would threaten to or even consider to reduce longevity
payments."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Price to realize that SB 117 is a
Governor's bill.
LAURIE CHURCHILL from Nikiski opposed SB 117. She advised there
are many other areas that could be cut. "Taking money away from
senior citizens is morally and ethically wrong."
DORRIS LEE KOPP from Paxson opposed SB 117. She has been an
Alaskan resident since 1947. The bonus has helped her to pay
insurance and to stay independent. She has never had to depend
on the state or federal government for aid and doesn't want to
start now.
WALTER KOPP from Paxson opposed SB 117. He and his wife generate
their own power. It is expensive for them to travel to doctors
and to pay for food. Seniors who support SB 117 should return
their checks. The bonus should not be means tested because each
person's lifestyle is different. "The longevity bonus program is
our safety net.... Why not take $200 out of each and every
permanent fund check to help support our state budget?"
AL SLAGLE intended to participate, but was unable to stay long
enough to testify.
ELENA RATH from Ketchikan opposed SB 117. She spoke on behalf of
the senior citizens from the Ketchikan Adult Day Center who were
unable to attend. They use the bonus to pay for fuel, groceries
and medications. She said she is 39 years old and would be
willing to pay more user fees to help senior citizens.
ELIZABETH DENNIS from Anchorage opposed SB 117. She and her
husband have lived in Alaska since 1957. People on fixed incomes
depend on the money. A graduated income tax would be fair
because the people that have the most would pay the most.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked committee members if they were
available to stay and listen to testimony until 7:00 pm because
an enormous number of people were waiting to express their
views.
EMILIE LINDSTROM from Juneau asked to testify before it got dark
because she was unable to drive after dark.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked her to come forward.
MS. LINDSTROM opposed SB 117. She has lived in Alaska since 1942
and it's a very expensive place to live. She said, "Water alone
is $62.50. I have arthritis I can't sit in the tub so I have a
quick shower. And I live with my cat and she drinks less than
one-half cup of water a day and we still pay $62.50 for water
alone. And the oil is very expensive because we old people can't
be cold.... I wouldn't go hungry without the money, however it
does help. I think it's only fair that the people that make
money should pay taxes."
J.R. HANK LANGMAN from Anchorage opposed SB 117. He said he
would send his comments directly to Chair Gary Stevens, but he
had a question. Senator Hoffman addressed the issue, but he
wondered if anyone had done a study of how eliminating the bonus
would affect all the villages in the outlying areas. Eliminating
the program would be a serious mistake for all Alaskans.
NORMA ALDERFER from Anchorage told the LIO moderator what she
had to say had already been said.
JOHN CERUTTI from Valdez opposed SB 117. He is the vice
president of the Pioneers of Alaska, Igloo 7. He suggested that
the Governor ask state employees to pay 50 percent of their
medical benefits if he really wants to save money. He said, "The
safety net for seniors has a huge hole in it and Senator Hoffman
should be praised for his remarks."
BOB KELSEY was born in Valdez in 1918 and he opposed SB 117. The
nation is in a depression and the President has gotten the
country in a war in Iraq and is spending billions of dollars.
Taxes will certainly go up so seniors will need the longevity
bonus more than ever.
BILL BARR from Valdez intended to participate, but was unable to
stay long enough to testify.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced the committee members had previous
commitments so testimony would be taken for another hour at
most, but he would take additional testimony at a later meeting.
RUTH BOHMS from Fairbanks opposed SB 117. She has lived in
Alaska for the last 52 years. The purpose of the bonus was
clearly stated in 1972. She read from the original legislation.
"Under no circumstances shall this chapter be considered a form,
type or method of public relief. Bonuses under this chapter are
not predicated on need even though they may appear to provide
supplemental income to some qualified persons who would
otherwise be forced to become responsibilities of the state. The
Legislature further finds and states that this legislation
recognizes the economic hardships suffered by many elderly
Alaskans. Alaskans who through their tenacity and perseverance
molded Alaska as we know it through skillful application of
their talents. This legislation will, hopefully, provide our
pioneers with the economic means to remain in and continue to
serve this state and to enjoy the opportunities of aiding the
new Alaskans in making this state truly The Great Land."
She suggested the Governor and his imaginative staff create a
special user fee for North Slope workers who "come into Alaska
and leave like bandits with their loot making no contribution to
our great state..."
5:00 pm
HARRY JENKINS from Fairbanks opposed SB 117. The price of
everything, including ice pool tickets, has risen. He noted a
local newspaper reported 3,274 tax foreclosures in the North
Star Borough. He asked, "Does that tell you anything?"
CHAIR GARY STEVENS stated he would take testimony until 6:00 pm
then he would reconvene on Thursday for additional testimony. He
apologized to everyone who would not be able to participate that
day.
He called Karen Wood and the Fairbanks moderator informed him
Ms. Wood decided to send her written comments rather than give
oral testimony.
RUDY VETTER from Fairbanks opposed SB 117. He has been a
resident since 1947 and he and other recipients have helped
increase the economies of various communities.
HENRY FERGUSON from Palmer had to leave before he was able to
testify.
FREDERICK STIRN spoke for the Houston Senior Center and opposed
SB 117. He pointed out many seniors won't qualify for the
various safety nets.
EILEEN JOHNSON from Wasilla opposed SB 117. In her household
budget her first priority is to cut unnecessary items, but the
elderly don't belong in that category. Other adjustments should
be made.
CORINNE WALKER had to leave before giving testimony.
DON DINKEL from Wasilla opposed SB 117. He has lived in Alaska
for 66 years. This was a promise and is one of the most humane
and economical programs the state has ever had. He urged members
to consider the benefits of the program rather than focusing
solely on the costs.
DARREL C. CONNICK from Bethel would send written comments rather
than give oral testimony.
ARTHUR DULL SR. from Bethel had to leave before giving
testimony.
BOB HATCHER opposed SB 117. He is a WW II veteran who voted for
statehood. If this bill passes, many seniors will have to leave
their homes.
TAPE 2
5:10 pm
CHAIR GARY STEVENS reported six people were waiting to give
testimony in Ninilchik and he asked that they select just three
to speak. He also asked that just three of the 25 people from
the Anchorage Pioneer Home give testimony.
LORRAINE SCONBERG had to leave before giving testimony.
Annie ZAROAT from Ninilchik opposed SB 117. She has lived in
Alaska for 46 years. The bonus is just as important today as it
was initially.
JOHNNY COOK SR. from Ninilchik opposed SB 117. He is 71 and
depends on the longevity bonus. Many of the conservative voters
in this state are senior citizens who voted for Governor
Murkowski. "This measure is coming back to us like a slap in the
face."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted there were eight people waiting to
testify in Haines. He asked them to select three.
BARBARA LEWIS from Haines opposed SB 117. There are 133 seniors
in Haines who receive and depend on the bonus.
STANLEY BROWN from the Anchorage Pioneers Home opposed SB 117.
He advised he and his wife have eight children who live in
Alaska and all are of voting age.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said he heard him loud and clear.
CAROLYN TUOVINEN a volunteer at the Anchorage Pioneer Home
opposed SB 117. She is aware of how important the bonus is to
seniors. She takes offense at the comments regarding public
employees because most of them work very hard. Senior recipients
rely on the bonus and they need it.
JOHN HALL from the Anchorage Pioneer Home opposed SB 117. He has
been a resident since 1939 and knows the program has been very
important to many. He feels it would almost be a crime to take
it away from those who need it.
ELDERSON BEAVER had to leave before giving testimony.
DR. ROBERT BILLINGS opposed SB 117. He moved to Alaska in 1960
and is a WW II veteran. He has a number of medical issues and is
trying to remain independent. He said he can't afford to leave
Alaska and he can't afford to stay either.
JUNE HOSS from Haines opposed SB 117. She is a lifelong Alaskan
and does not receive the bonus. The 133 bonus checks issued to
seniors in the Haines Valley brought in $399,000 last year. She
estimated, "Every penny of that probably stayed in the
district." In the last several months they lost five seniors,
which indicates the program will phase out on its own. She
closed saying, "I think SB 117 should be tossed out."
5:25 pm
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced he was sorry he had to put so many
people off, but they were doing the best they could. In Juneau
he noted Ralph C. Hunt was present but did not want to testify.
MARIE DARLIN, a lifelong Alaskan from Juneau, represented AARP
and opposed SB 117. She advised there are many reasons they
should work to keep seniors in Alaska. In December 2001 the
McDowell Group conducted a study for the Commission on Aging and
reported that seniors are an industry and a resource. They bring
revenue into the state and provide countless hours of volunteer
time to communities. Many non-profits and communities would be
hard pressed to operate without volunteer help.
A copy of her full testimony is in the bill file.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted Norma Jean McCorcle, Jim McCorcle,
Larry Weld, Mildred Tandy, Betty Hunt, Miriam Lowe, Lorilyn
Swanson, George Rogers, Olive Rogers, Maurice Lone, Jim Castrol,
and Sandy Perry were present but did not wish to testify.
SAM TRIVETTE from Juneau opposed SB 117. He is president of the
Retired Public Employees Association of Alaska. He arrived in
Alaska in 1954 and both his parents retired here. He took care
of them the last five years of their lives and both had serious
medical problems. Even though they had Social Security and state
retirement, it is likely he would have had to move them into an
assisted care facility outside Alaska if it hadn't been for the
longevity bonus. In reviewing the data it's clear that many of
the recipients are women who are at least 75 years old.
Discontinuing this program will have a huge economic impact on
communities because many of these seniors will be forced to
leave the state and take their Social Security, retirement
benefits and assets with them.
Although he did not read Governor Murkowski's letter in the
Anchorage Daily News early in the week in which he was pitting
seniors against seniors, he finds this extremely distasteful and
is saddened the Governor would stoop to that level.
AMBER KLOPP from Homer had to leave before she could give
testimony.
ED KLOPP from Homer had to leave before he could give testimony.
IRIS DOUGLASS from Homer advised she was speaking for five other
seniors all of whom opposed SB 117.
ROY DOUGLASS from Homer had to leave before he could give
testimony.
JANET TOBUK from Nome spoke for her mother and others who are
similarly situated in opposition to SB 117. She doesn't receive
the bonus but is retired and grew up in Alaska. She said her
late grandfather said, "Be careful what you take from the
government, they might want something in return and you might
not want or be able to give it back."
DANIEL KARMUN, SR. from Nome opposed SB 117. He serves on the
Alaska Commission on Aging because there was no representation
for the villages in the state. He has had the opportunity to
speak to Elders, to Kotzebue, to the president of Nana, and
others and they all expressed concern regarding the elimination
of the longevity bonus program. The needs in the 36 villages
near Nome are just as great as in urban areas. The support
provided by the longevity program has been very important to
their survival.
One of the things his Eskimo parents taught him is to show
respect and to serve all Elders "who have been the background of
our lives in each generation. We owe it to them to serve them in
crisis."
MARGARET HALL from Kodiak opposed SB 117. She and her husband
are 55 year residents of Alaska and bonus recipients. They
retired in Alaska because of the quality of life offered.
Although it is an unpopular suggestion, a state income tax based
on a percentage of the federal tax would affect all citizens,
those who receive the least income and those with the largest
income. She said, "I would hate to think that our Legislature
and our Governor are thinking that we are dying off just too
slowly."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS assured her they would never think that.
JAN CHATTO from Kodiak opposed SB 117. Although she is not
eligible to receive the bonus, she believes the state has an
obligation to live up to their commitment. It's not fair to
balance the budget on the backs of the poorest in the state. An
income tax would be much more equitable.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted people waiting to testify in Glennallen
were gone.
Ervin McKenzie from Anchorage had to leave before he could give
testimony.
Mary McKenzie from Anchorage had to leave before he could give
testimony.
DEANNE YOUNG from Anchorage spoke on behalf of the Older Persons
Action Group. She read a letter opposing SB 117 a copy of which
is in the bill file.
PATRICK LUBY from Anchorage works for AARP and opposed SB 117.
He said he couldn't understand why the Governor would even
propose something like this. This is the personification of
"wedge politics" which is an effort to get groups to work
against one another and it's very inappropriate for Alaska to
participate. He said, "Senator Cowdery hit the nail on the head.
The bonus goes to the oldest of older Alaskans." They are also
the people with the highest health care costs, they live in the
oldest homes with the highest utility costs, and they are more
likely to be widowed older women. The safety net is welfare and
anyone who has worked with older Alaskans recognizes they want
and need to continue to receive the longevity bonus, which
recognizes the contributions they have made. Older Alaskans
would work with the Governor to solve the budget problems but
what is done must be fair and make sense. Eliminating the bonus
doesn't make any sense and it certainly isn't fair.
GRETCHEN WEHMHOFF from Anchorage spoke on behalf of her parents
and opposed SB 117. They have lived in Alaska since the early
1960s and have contributed like most seniors. The bonus played a
part in their calculations to determine whether they could
afford to retire in Alaska. They now depend on the bonus and
eliminating it is not a respectful thing to do to them and other
seniors. She heard no one except Governor Murkowski and the two
department representatives speak in favor of SB 117.
ED BARBER from Anchorage opposed SB 117. Past chairman of the
Pioneer Home Advisory Board, Ed Doss was a primary advocate of
the program who always gave four points when discussing the
program.
· These funds allow old timers to remain in Alaska rather
than moving south upon retirement.
· The bonus acts as seed money and turns over many times
throughout the economy as the funds continue to circulate.
· The bonus is a tribute that is received with dignity by the
pioneers for their time and contribution to Alaska rather
than some form of welfare assistance.
· It puts a little sugar in an old timers coffee.
He closed stating SB 117 is a draconian measure that targets the
eldest of seniors.
5:55 pm
SHIRLEY KNIGHT from Fairbanks opposed SB 117. When she read of
Governor Murkowski's plans she and other seniors were shocked.
This is an injustice to pioneers. She doesn't receive the bonus
but she has benefited from the seniors. She said, "I think
Governor Murkowski should get back to reality because this is
not an easy time for senior citizens."
ALFRED GRANT from Fairbanks had to leave before he could give
testimony.
BETTY HUMMEL from Fairbanks had to leave before she could give
testimony.
PEARL SELID WATSON from Fairbanks had to leave before she could
give testimony.
MARGARET ZIELINSKI from Fairbanks opposed SB 117. She and her
husband were shocked to hear that Governor Murkowski intended to
eliminate the longevity bonus program. There are no magic
programs to fill the hole the loss of this program would create.
She said he should leave the old people alone and allow them to
keep their pride.
SIDE B
6:00 pm
BOB HUFMON from Fairbanks said pioneer seniors strongly oppose
SB 117. He said this is the only state program he knows of that
is designed to self-destruct. It goes down each year with no
governmental intervention. Abolishing the bonus would create
undue hardship for many seniors now faced with escalating costs.
"The Governor's attempt to split the senior community into two
factions is absolutely ludicrous. He may well find out that all
seniors stick together for their mutual benefit and protection."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS apologized to the people who didn't get the
opportunity to testify. Some of them were: Vi Jerrel from Homer,
Marguerite Stetson, Leslie J. Zarobsky, Ronelva Peacock, Chuck
Diz from Anchorage, Nancy Mendenhall, Darlene Herbert, Betty
Hufman, Evelyn Melavic, Randall Acord, Wenzel Raith, Cliff
Brennen, Don Lee, Roger Hansen, Patricia Smith, Gladys Terry,
Charlotte Davis, Glenn Hanneman, Janette Hanneman, Glenn
Hackney, Ed Shellinger, Joe Strunka and Vernon Miller from
Fairbanks.
SB 117 was held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|